Back to sermon search

Full transcript

This afternoon, I want to use this session to talk about the next major thing that comes up when we have settled the matter of the original manuscripts, and we have seen where the authority for the New Testament eventually leaves. The next thing that comes up logically is the question of translation. Do the translations available to us correctly and accurately translate the original Greek? Now, as you know, gentlemen, this matter of different translations of the Bible has given rise to a lot of anxiety and contention amongst believers. It is not our job, if we understand something about textual criticism and manuscripts and languages and so forth, it is not our job to shake people's faith. We must use our scholarship, if we have any, to establish their faith and to strengthen it. We must be particularly careful with older people who were brought up to believe that the authorized version is inspired from cover to cover, and therefore feel that any other translations that differ therefrom are very suspect and not to be used, at least in the assembly. We must be careful, I repeat, in how we approach them. If a man says to me, I believe the authorized version is inspired of God from cover to cover, I reply according to what I think he means. He means I believe the word of God is inspired of God from cover to cover. Yes, and I say, hallelujah. Do you believe the Bi- the word of God, the Bible is God's inspired word? So do I, of course. And sometimes that is enough and all that needs to be. Beware that we give the impression through our learning that we undermine people's faith. That said, of course, we must, and do, I'm sure, face this matter of different translations, and we need to ask ourselves why they differ. To start our proceedings, therefore, I, uh, wish to show you the frontispiece of the Authorized Version. It announced itself to the world as the Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, translated out of the original tongues. Now notice the next bit. And with the former translations diligently compared. So there were English translations before the authorized version. And then it says, not only with the former translations diligently compared and revised. The authorized version was a revised version. And they who object to reading the vi- the revision that was made in in England in eighteen ninety one because it's the revised and they prefer the authorized, forget if they ever knew that the authorized in its day was a revised version. Therefore, Stuart has kindly brought along here a book by David Danielle, The Bible in English, history of the Bible in English, listing and describing many of the translations that preceded the Authorized Version, as well as others. And I brought along here the volumes of Tyndale's New Testament. To see, and the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Authorized Version is about eighty percent Tyndale anyway. And it is useful to know about those earlier translations as well as the modern ones. Now, why do they differ? Why do translations differ? There are a number of different reasons why they differ. And a Bible classes and others ought to be taught, uh, little by little as they can bear it, the actual facts about these things, so that when they meet differences, they are not stumbled, they can understand why they have arisen. Here is... the authorized version compared with other versions. And here it's a question not so much of translation, which more exactly translates the original. Here the difference is caused by the fact that some manuscripts have one reading, as we call it, and other manuscripts have other readings. Here it is a question, therefore, of which manuscripts you decide to follow when you translate the New Testament. So some manuscripts have, blessed are those who do his commandments that they might have right to the tree of life and enter into the gates of the city. Mm-hmm. Other manuscripts have, in that very same verse, not blessed are those that do his commandments, but blessed are those that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter through the gates into the city. So there is not a question of whether you translate accurately or not. The prime- the prior question is, which manuscripts shall you follow? It is an important matter, of course. It is talking about the conditions necessary for entering the eternal city. Outside is the lake of fire. On what depends, therefore, anybody's entry into that eternal city. Judged doctrinally from what the rest of the New Testament says. What would you decide, gentlemen? Let me have any volunteer. Judged doctrinally, which would you choose, if it's a question of choosing on the basis of consistent New Testament doctrine? Right to eternal life is dependent on doing the commandments or washing your robes? Pardon, did somebody speak? B. You'd ha- oh, you took B, yes. Yes, righto. You're B. Yes, it depends on washing your robes. And what does that mean? Well, we could answer it, couldn't we, in the terms that John uses elsewhere in his, uh, revelation, have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. That is, right to enter into the eternal city is dependent on the cleansing by the blood of the Lamb, by redemption. We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. Here's a tricky question, therefore. Do you decide your doctrine on the basis of the manuscripts, or do you decide which manuscripts to follow on the basis of your doctrine. I suggest normally that it is a mixture of the two that will guide us. When you look at the Greek behind it, I put them into, uh, put it into English letters. The first one, blessed are those who keep his command- that do his commandments, pojuntes ta sento lasavtu. You will notice how very near in the Greek that is to the other one, pojuntes prunantes. Ta sentelas ta stallas. And notice, uh, uh, uh. Notice then it could be that copyists confused the letters. Also judge the matter by what is John's enormous vocab- nor- uh, normal vocabulary. And elsewhere in the revelation, he talks about not doing the commandments, but keeping the commandments is John's normal phrase. Evangelicals who nevertheless follow the authorized version and declare it is everywhere correct, they choose A because the authorized translators base themselves on manuscripts that read A, and therefore, though evangelicals, they've got to somehow justify the phrase doing his commandments as the basis of right to enter under the tree of life. Their argument normally goes that if you are a genuine believer, you have eternal life through faith, you see, justified by faith. That is the basic condition. But if you are a genuine believer, you will do the Lord's commandments anyway. And so, instead of putting the condition, the manuscripts have got the result, so to speak. You wouldn't need that if you followed the other manuscripts, of course. I cite it simply now as one of the reasons that can exist for differences in translation, namely that some translations follow one set of manuscripts, some another. Now let's look at another reason why translators, translations differ. This is Luke chapter five verse three. The authorized, he entered into one of the ships. The NIV, he got into one of the boats. Now, actually, if you were talking in terms of naval architecture, then a boat isn't the same thing as a ship. But in everyday speech, of course, boats and ships are one and the same thing. Makes no difference whatsoever, whether you say he, uh, entered into one of the ships or you say he got into one of the boats. And as for entering in... I don't know, you'll have to tell me because I'm, as I said, a dinosaur, so my language habits are not the same as the younger generation. Nowadays, do people enter into anything? And when I entered into my car, yes? No? What do you say? When, when I got into my car, yes. Yes, that's modern English, you see. Terrible in my ears, but never mind, you see. This is the way that language changes. Hey, and so the AV and the NIV... in Luke five three. It's a difference... without being a difference. Different words, same meaning. But now look at Luke twenty three fifteen. And behold, nothing worthy of death is done by him. NIV, and you can see he has done nothing to deserve death. But the authorized version has... nothing worthy of death is done to him. This is Pilate talking to the crowd, and Pilate is trying to say, I don't find any fault in this man, and I sent him to Herod, and Herod has sent him back, and Herod agrees. He hasn't done anything worthy of death. When the authorized therefore quotes Pilate as saying, you can see that nothing worthy of death was done to him. Doesn't make sense. In fact, it is a straightforward mistranslation of the Greek. The Greek says nothing worthy of death has been done by him. It can be a difficult job translating. Scarcely ever was there a translation made that didn't somewhere or other mistranslate the original Greek. Sometimes, therefore, translations differ because one or more translations has mistranslated the Greek. Now let's look at another set of reasons why translations differ. Matthew nine fifteen, Authorized Version. Can the children of the bride chamber mourn while the bridegroom is yet with them. And you might well ask, what on earth are children of the bride chamber? I don't know what your friend who's never read the Authorized Version before, read the Bible before, and you give him Matthew to read in the Authorized Version, and he comes across this, can the children of the bride chamber mourn? What on earth are children of the bride chamber? Mm-hmm. The Greek here is simply translating literally the Aramaic or the Hebrew. Children of the bride chamber means the bridegroom's guests. So the authorized has a very literal translation of the Greek. That is what the Greek says, children of the bride chamber. The authorizes translated it literally. But there comes a point where if you translate a language literally into another language, it ceases to make sense. For if you go to France and go to the greengrocers and you ask the greengrocers, I want potatoes. The Frenchman, if he doesn't know English, will look at you faintly. What do you mean potatoes? Potatoes. And you'll eventually learn that the French for potatoes is apples of the earth, pommes de terre. Do you see? So your French friend that you made in France comes and stays with you in Northern Ireland, and you take him down to the greengrocer shop. And he says he wants pomme de terre, he tells you he wants pomme de terre, and you translate him literally. So you say to the greengrocer in Belfast, my friend here wants some apples of the earth. Hmm, difficult, wouldn't it? Wouldn't know what on earth you were talking about. For the English of apples of the earth is potatoes. So to translate apples of the earth properly and sensibly, you mustn't translate it literally. Or Or m- m- a a translation literal is to, to misun- uh, is to, uh, uh, uh, uh, give an incorrect translation. It means sons of the bride chamber, children of the bride chamber means guests of the bridegroom. If a friend came back and said, while you were out today at your studies, I was at old Joe's funeral. You say, how did it go? How many, um, uh, uh, uh, children of the bride chamber were there there? Wouldn't know what you're talking about, would he? Of course not. How many guests were there? We cannot therefore always translate scripture literally. What they meant by their idiom has got to be translated into English idiom. That's why sooner or later translations have to be brought up to modern standards of English. So look now at another reason, the question of literal translation or not literal translation. It has been a principle of translation much followed by newer translations. It's been a principle of translation called dynamic translation. It means not translating literally, but translating the force of the original into the same kind of forcefulness in the receptor language. Dynamic translations. Now, some dynamic translations can, in the course of translating the original, add rather a lot of interpretation instead of being content to have translation. And it's not good to have too much interpretation. Some people, therefore, reject modern translations because they say they, they have indulged in this dynamic translation business. But so did the authorized, of course. Not so much as modern do. Romans six two, in the Greek, Paul says, Paul says, what shall we, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? And in Greek he says, may ginoita, which literally translates as may it not be so. But in Greek, may ginoita is a very strong phrase, powerful phrase. Whereas if you translate it literally into English, may it not be so, sounds like a prayer or something, and is rather weak. So even the authorized didn't attempt to translate it literally, but used a dynamic translation. God forbid. Well, you'll notice in Greek there's no word for God, and there's no word for forbid. It is a dynamic translation, and you see why they did it, is to bring out the force of the Greek in similarly forceful English. God forbid. You will notice that other translators have similarly used dynamic translations. There is J. N. Darby's translation, for instance. I don't know even if he'd ever heard of the phrase dynamic translation, but he uses one, do you see? Far be the thought. I could think of others. Not on your life. Or anything like that, you see. The NIV says by no means. N- n- not quite so powerful as God forbid, would you say? Not so much dynamic in it, but there you are. In other words, in translation, sometimes you have to bear in mind not merely what the, the original word is saying, but the emotional connotation of it. And you haven't fully translated unless you can convey the emotional connotation as well as the literal meaning. In translating emotional meaning, however. One has to be careful in a receptor language of another consideration. Those eight English phrases all mean more or less the same thing. What is the difference between them, if any. Number six, for instance, is a phrase that you will find in the older English translations, he gave up the ghost. Or he died. Don't think anywhere in the authorized version he went home is used, is it? Certainly not he picked out. Certainly not. Why not? Why, w- would you use a phrase, uh, having served his day and generation, he pegged out? Why not? Why wouldn't you use it? Means the same thing. Why wouldn't you use it? It's slang, yes. It is slang. We have to be careful in presenting the gospel, gen- gentlemen, that we don't descend into slang ourselves. Well, you better watch it if you're talking to university students in the talk shop or somewhere, well, perhaps you come down to their language. Not if you're talking to an older congregation. Who would regard slang as inappropriate for Holy Scripture. Um, he went home. Try that on the atheist you meet that never has read the scripture at all and doesn't know the first thing about Christianity, and you told him that Mr. Smith went home. What will he make out of that? What does it mean to you? What's the difference between he died and he went home? One man. Pardon? And one man. Yeah, yes, that's right. This is a Christian view of things. He went home. He went home to glory, absent from the body, present with the Lord. So we say the dear brother has gone home. And Christians understand it. An old atheist who didn't know the Bible wouldn't know what on earth you're talking about. Perhaps he went home from his office after, after, after his work one day or something. Yes? The Christian implication. He deceased, of course, is a much more formal, almost legal term. The matter of language, gentlemen, and English is, uh, notorious in this. It has many different levels of language. Uh-huh. Uh. Lay down, lay down, thou weary one, thy head upon my breast. Isn't that delightful? Simple, straightforward English, bit old now. Lay down, lay down, thou wearied one, my head, thy head upon my breast. Now let me turn that into the Latinized form of English with full technical terms. Deposit, deposit, you fatigued person, your cranium on my sternum. Means exactly the same thing. But then it doesn't mean anything the same thing, because the simple English, lay down, lay down, thou weary one, my, thy head upon my breast, is simple English appealing to our hearts. And therefore it means something very different from the technical language, deposit, deposit, you fatigued person, your cranium on my sternum. Gentlemen, sometimes in preaching, it is good to use as much simple, straightforward Anglo-Saxon English as you can use, instead of complicated, long, Latinized words. When it comes, therefore, to translations, I can understand some of the older folks being upset by what they thi- found is, uh, uh, to them bordering on slang. Mm-hmm. So let me now refer you to two other examples. Why do translations differ? Romans chapter six. Anybody here got a re- an authorized version? You have, sir? Would you be prepared to to read in stentorian voice so that everybody could hear it. Romans six, verse six. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, and henceforth we should not bear sin. Mm-hmm. Now you notice what our friend read. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Christ. Which sounds to many people in English as a present tense. Because it uses the verb is, which is present tense of the verb to be. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified. And from it they take the fact that we ought to crucify the old man every day of the week. Even if we don't. But that is crucified in the authorized is a correct translation of the Greek. But it is Old English. And represents a perfect tense in Old English. In modern English, the usage has changed. So if you look in, uh, uh, uh, uh, more modern translations, like the Revised, it says, knowing this that our old man was crucified with Christ. This is a past tense. It doesn't mean that the authorized as there got it wrong, for in the days of the authorized, that's how you would have spoken of the past. Martha says to Mary, for instance, let's take another example. She, she will say, our Lord had arrived in Bethany, Martha had gone out to meet him, had some conversation with him, and then she went to call, uh, Mary. And she said to Mary, the teacher is come, the master is come, and calleth for thee. Is come. Sounds like a present to us. It was a past tense. The master has come. And you who are experts in French, the French is for I have come, je. Perhaps you don't know. The French for, the French for I have come is I am come, je suis venu. That idiom still holds in French. I am come in French, je suis venu. The equivalent in modern English is I have come. Yes? It is important doctrinally to see in Hebrews 6, you see, uh, that Paul is saying that our old man was crucified with Christ. And the same thing is true in Galatians chapter two. Galatians chapter two, verse uh twenty. Anybody got the re- the authorized there? What does the authorized say? I am crucified with Christ. Uh-huh. Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. Yes. I am crucified. As though it were a present tense. It's a past tense in Greek. I have been crucified with Christ. That is doctrinally important. Let me repeat, the authorized is not wrong. It was right in its day. That is the way you talked of a past tense in English in those days. But if you insist on just repeating it nowadays, then you will give the wrong impression to folks in modern English who will think you're talking about a present activity instead of something that happened in the past. Let me take an easier example of that. Matthew chapter six. and thou when thou prayest, authorized version, enter into your closet. Really? There was an elderly lady I met in my youth, you'll see, who explained to me that when she was a girl, she read that, she took it in the literal sense of what closet meant in her day, which meant the WC, a water closet. WC, the closet, people called it. So when she went to pray, she went to the lavatory. Well, to say that she was a little bit simple, uh, is perhaps an understatement. But you see, closet, ah, uh, really meant a hidden room, an inner room that was closed to others so you didn't get interrupted. An inner room. Uh, do you see? That is not the meaning now, because a closet now, even in my youth, meant a lavatory, a water closet. They sound very funny if you gave this to your, uh, uh, uh, atheist modern friend who never read the Bible, and you said the way to pray, do you know what the way to pray is? Get into your closet. To an American, it would sound very odd, for well, dear Americans, closet is a cupboard. They still use it as a cupboard. Hang your coat up in the closet. Mm-hmm. So here we therefore have to do with the, the set, the fact that words can change their meanings over the years. Therefore, to be intelligible, we must, uh, um, uh... We must bring the our language up to date, and that's why, in fact, we need modern translations. Now let's think about the translation of technical terms. There's a word in Greek, ekklesia. We have it in English in the adjectival form ecclesiastical. In Greek, it meant in Athens, in the Greek of Athens, in the days of their democracy, it meant the assembly of all the male citizens over a certain age. The The Ecclesia. ekklesia. In English, it has for long centuries been translated as church. Though in Scottish, Scotland, it was translated as kirk. Chap goes to the kirk, whereas an Englishman says he goes to church. Mm-hmm. Kirk is a very interesting word in Scotland. It is a corruption of the Greek word kyriaki. Kyriaki is an adjective normally attached to the word ikia, which is a house. So Kyriaki ikia is the Lord's house. And that came into English, into Scottish, as the kirk, the Kyriaki, the Lord's house. You'll see. Church in English. How should you translate it in the New Testament? Well, here I put up three translations for you. Dear old Tyndale, when he translated the Bible into English before the Authorized Version was translated, declined the word, declined to use the word church, because by his day, the church was the building, the big building downtown where Christians met. You go to church. He came out of the church. In the church there's an organ and all this kind of thing, you see. And Tyndale wanted to, uh, get across the notion that the church is not in that sense a physical building. The church is the people. So he translated it congregation. Ephesians chapter five, Christ loved the congregation and gave himself for it. Good old Tyndale, his protest against religiosity that had taken and developed the word church so that it now generally referred to the building where Christians met. Deliberately used the English to bring it back, uh, to get the right idea across. It's not the building that forms the church, it's the people, the believers, the congregation. Christ loved the congregation. Now look what the Authorized Version was, uh, authorized, hence it's called the Authorized Version, by the high and mighty King James. And King James, though he was a Protestant, was against all little groups like Baptists and things, meeting in what he would call conventicles. And since the translators had to do what pleased high and mighty King James, he had the authorized version translated, and as you noticed, from the preface to the original, it was authorized to be read where? You didn't notice, I think. In churches, yes, please, not at your home. Wow. This writes to be read as the official version, in churches. You will understand Mr. Darby seeking for another term and saying Christ loved the assembly. We'll see all the connotations that cling to these words, sometimes unspoken connotations, you'll see. Mm-hmm. It is therefore important to ponder long what kind of, um, translation you'll give to some of these technical terms. Now look at another term that has proved very difficult for translators to translate. And that is the Greek word sarx, which means, in the first place, flesh, and very often is used of that constituent part of a human body that is flesh. So it is written in John chapter one, the word became flesh. Yes? Meaning the Word who eternally existed and eternally was the, uh, uh, was God, the Word of God was God, yet at one point became human without ceasing to be God. And therefore, to express that he became fully human, John says the Word became flesh. But then it can carry different connotations in different parts of scripture. One of the prophets, in God's name, rebuking Israel for their trust in Egypt instead of in the living God. Egypt and his mighty battalions of horses and chariots and things. He says their horses are flesh and not spirit. And the Egyptians are men and not God. So flesh can have a, a little bad sense of weak human beings. Now look at this passage, you are not in the flesh but in the spirit. Or the fa- passage in Galatians, the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. What does flesh mean in those contexts? Well, you see the modern translation, the NIV, has said to itself, but people won't understand what it means if it says you are not in the flesh but in the spirit. How can they understand what that means? And so they have used a dynamic translation and says you are controlled not by the sinful nature. But wait a minute. Would you agree that that's what the term flesh means there? Or by your lower nature, whatever a lower nature is. Hmm. Now we've got to be careful, it seems to me, over things like this. Granted that you will need the term flesh, you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, or the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. We shall need to understand it and interpret it. But whether it's right to put in the translation so much interpretation, that flesh here means your sinful nature or your lower nature. That seems to me at least to be a very doubtful practice to do that. You say, but if you just leave the word flesh, people won't understand it. Ah. Well, perhaps the thing to do then is to put a footnote down the bottom of the page and say, I think the term here means this. Because, gentlemen, when Paul wrote his epistles and he used the word sarx, what do you suppose the original Greeks who got it thought it meant. Well, the original Greeks who r- who read it would have been a little bit perplexed, and what does Paul mean by sarx here? And therefore they had to think and compare what, what, what Paul says elsewhere, and ask him when he came the next time what he meant by it, and so forth and so on. It seems to me that in cases like that, we're best to leave a literal translation, and if we must put a footnote to it, here we think the word means this, and leave it to the reader to decide as he considers the whole of Paul's writing, so to speak. Mm-hmm. You say you're making it sound as a very complicated thing. Hmm. Hmm. Isn't it marvelous how God has used the, uh, very poor translations to the conversion of millions? When the early Christian missionaries went to Africa, as I was saying this morning, they had to preach in Latin, you see. So then they had to translate the New Testament from Greek into Latin. They had an enormous job. For God is love, you see, pursue after love, and they translated it by the Latin word amor. Hm? But then people like Saint Augustine thought that was very doubtful, because by that time the word amor in Latin meant sexual love. So, he said that wouldn't do. Well, what word would you use for love then? And even the great Augustine, great scholar though he was, wonderful knowledge of Latin, tried to think up a word that he could use in Latin for love that wouldn't have the wrong connotations. And eventually he decided on the Latin word caritas. That came over into English as charity. Follow after charity. That's what your authorized version says, yes? Follow after charity. In the course of the centuries, however, charity has come to mean what? Well, it's mean giving to the poor, and we can talk about charity being as cold as ice. Wouldn't do now for to translate love. God is charity. Hardly. Yes, there are difficulties in translation. Let's not ex- over, uh, exaggerate them. As I say, when the early missionaries went to, um, Africa, translated the Greek of the New Testament into Latin, then they were faced with translating the Old Testament, which was originally written in Hebrew, and I didn't know Hebrew. So what they did was to translate the old, uh, the, the, uh, Hebrew, uh, the, uh, old Greek translation. There was a Greek translation of the Hebrew, and they translated that Greek translation into Latin, if you please. Well, the many places the Greek translation was a bit woppety and whippety, and when it came out into Latin, it was most curious. You see. God used it to the establishment of hundreds of churches. And you think of our early missionaries going to, I don't know where, Timbuktu or Africa or somewhere, and not knowing Greek or Hebrew, and they wanted to translate scripture into the language, they translated the authorized version as best they could. And God blessed it. We mustn't exaggerate the difficulties, must we? On the other hand, we've been talking about translation of Holy Scripture and that, uh, uh, uh, and why do the versions differ? Because we want to understand it, and we must be as exact as we can be. And we have our motives in evangelism, don't we? If we're going to speak to our modern generation, we need to speak in a language that they can understand. Of course, when it comes to technical terms like flesh, then we shall have to explain to them. But gentlemen, have mercy, for if you started to talk to me about computers and Blackberries, and uh, uh, some people have three MPs. I don't know why that is. MP three. why you want, why you, why you would want three MPs? One would be more than enough for me. But you see, then you would say, well, poor fellow, and you would do your best to try and un- make me understand, wouldn't you? When it comes to technical terms, you have to leave the technical terms as they are and explain them, yes? We must follow that mixture of tactics in our evangelism, mustn't we? I want to say one final thing, and this comes back to the difference you will find in translations, and I take as an example one Timothy three sixteen. One Timothy three sixteen reads, and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. But in the next phrase, the Greek manuscripts have different readings. Some say God was manifest in the flesh. Others have he who was manifest in the flesh. And most modern co- uh, commentators and textual critics would say that the original reading there is not God was manifested, but he who was manifested. The context shows that the one Paul is talking about was God anyway. But because many modern translations have, um, put he who was manifested in the flesh. There has been an uproar in some circles, and they have been denounced for putting he who was manifest in the flesh, whereas the authorized has God was manifest in the flesh. And these modern translations have been accused of denying the deity of Christ. That's what they're doing. Which, uh, most of them, as far as I know, were never intending to deny the deity of Christ, but to be faithful to the manuscripts that they judged were closer to the original. Now, we do have to be very careful about it, because there has been a shameful denunciation of godly men by others who, let's hope they didn't know really what they were talking about. For if they knew what they were doing, they were guilty of very serious slander. So let us look at this chart, finally, by D. A. Carson, who dealt with some of the slanders that were brought against modern translations. And he studied sundry parts in the New Testament, where some translations give a translation that refers to God and Christ as two separate persons. Where other translations translate the Greek as taking both the term God and Christ to refer to the same person. So Titus chapter two, looking for that blessed hope and the appearing of... Now, how should the rest be translated? Some translate it as referring to two persons. Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of our great God. That's one person, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, that's the second person. Whereas the Greek is open to the translation that it refers to one person, looking for the glorious appearing, our blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. That means that Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior. So some translations in these passages, and there's a number of them, John one, John one again, Acts, Romans, two Thessalonians, Titus, Hebrews, and second Peter. Where some translations ascribe deity to Christ by the way they translate, and others do not. And Carson charted the translations. How, how many and how often in these translations they used a translation that a- applies deity to Christ. And of the ones that Carson tested, you will notice that the NIV comes out in top, on top. The highest number of such references belongs to the NIV. Mm-hmm. Just because translators honestly follow what they think is the right manuscript in certain places, as in one Timothy three, he who was manifest in flesh as distinct from God was manifest in flesh, is no grounds at all for saying that those translators deny the deity of Christ. That's sheer nonsense. As I say, if people don't understand what's involved, then perhaps they are to be excused. But if they did it knowing what's involved, they would be guilty of a very serious slander. Let's stand for the truth, but be prepared to think that translators, on the whole, set out to be loyal to what scripture says. Let us support the missionaries, who in other countries have wonderful difficulties in translating particularly the technical terms of the New Testament into simple languages that don't even have the basic concepts in their language in which to put the truths of Holy Scripture. They need our prayer and support. But let's finish it there. Just let me add that if I've confused you, well, hallelujah, praise the Lord. That I have at least showed you that there are complications in this thing. And as responsible servants for, uh, for the, of the living God, we ought to acquaint ourselves at least with some of the questions that arise in this manner, matter of manuscripts on the one hand and their different readings, and of the best way to translate the Greek on the other.